Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1887-12-10
PRoH1Brr1or rnoH1Brrs.
Opinion- Of Justice Harlan In tho. Kansna
Brewery Casa

Opinion Of Justice Harlan In tho. Kansna
Brewery Case.
WASHINGTON, d. O., December GA very
important decision, and one likely 10 be far
reaching in its consequences, was rendered
in the United States supreme court to-day,
in the so-caIled Kansas prohibition cases Of
Mugler VS.. the State of Kansas, and the
State of Kansas vs. Zeibold and others. The
judgment of the court was pronounced In Z
long and elaborate opinion by Mr.. Justice
Harlan, who said: 'sIhe general question in
each case is, whether the prohibition statutes
of Kansas are in conflict with that clause of
the Fourteenth amendment, which provides
that. no state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or i'm
munities of citizens, nor shall any state de-
prive any person of life, liberty
or property without due process
of law. ''That legislation by state prohib-
iting the manufacture within her limits of
intoxicating liquors to be resold or bartered
for general use as beverage, does not me-
cessalily infringe any right, privilege or i'm
munity secured by the constitution of the
United States, is made clear by the decisions
of this court, rendered before and since the
adoption of the Fourteenth amendment. It
is, however, contended that although state
may prohibit the manufacture of intoxicat-
ing iquo- for sale or barter within her linn
Its Tor general use as beverage, no con-
ventiOn or legislature has the right under
our form of government to prohibit any
citizen from the manufacture for his own
use or for export or storage, any Article of
food or drink, not endangering or affecting
the rights of others.
For the reason stated" says
Mugler, the plaintiff in error, has not been
denied by the Judgment of the supreme
court of Kansas any right or
privilege of immunity secured to him by the
constitution of the United States, and its
Judgment in each case is accordingly
affirmed. We are also of the opinion that
the circuit court of the United States erred
in dismissing the bill of the state in her suit
against Ziebold and Hagelin. The decree
manded with directions to enter decree
granting to the state such relief as the act OF
March 7, 1886, authorizes.
Justice Field concurred in the opin-
ions, as it related to the two cases
in which the state of Kansas was defendant,
but dissented as to the case of the State of
Kansas vs.. Seibold. He agreed. he said, to
So MUCH Oh the opinion as SuStaluS the Vallu-
ity of the act of Kansas prohibiting the sale
of intoxicants which are manufactured in
the state after the passage of the act. He
was not prepared, however, to say that the
prohibition of the manufacture of such
liquors, if entered for expectation
can be sustained, nor that the
state can forbid the sale under
regulations for the protection of the health
and morals of the people of any article
which Kansas may authorize to be imported.
He was not ready to admit that New York,
or any other coast state, could defeat an act
of congress. Neither could he concur in the
thirteenth section of the prohibition act of
Kansas, because he believed it authorized
the destruction of property without
due process of law. He could
not see upon what principal the legislature,
after closing brewery, can order the de-
struction of liquor, which it admits may be
valuable for medicinal or mechanical pur-
poses; nor could he see why the protection
of the morals of the state required the de-
struction of bottles and other utensils after
the liquor had been emptied from them.